JUDGMENT : Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J. 1. Heard Sri Brij Bhushan Paul along with Sri Anand Prakash Paul, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Rajiv Giri, learned counsel for respondents. 2. Present proceedings are arising out of suit for division of holdings under Section 176 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act filed by original defendant/respondent-2 Phoolchand. Said suit was decided by a preliminary decree dated 29.11.1980 and land was partitioned in following terms :- 3. Aforesaid order was challenged by way of an appeal before Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra which was dismissed and relevant part thereof is quoted below :- 4. In aforesaid circumstances, a second appeal was filed at behest of original petitioner which was partly allowed and decree of trial Court was modified on basis of following order :- "4. From the perusal of the record. I find that the land belonged to Mauji Ram who executed a gift deed. The shares of the parties should be decided on the basis of the shares of allotted in the gift deed by Mauji Ram. It appears that the total land in the Khewat was 55.00 acres. The area in cultivation was 21.07 acres. Mauji Ram gave 1-00acre of land to Thakur Ji and 6.23 acres of land to Phool Chand and 48.16 acres of land of Nathu, Ramji and Smt. Misri. The area in cultivation remained only 21.07 acres. So it remained 21.07 of land. The shares of the parties would be in that proportion as they were allotted in the area of 55.00 acres of land. So, the shares of Phool Chand would be 6.23X21.07/55 = 2.63 and that of Bhimsen would be ½ of 48.16X21.07/55= 9.22 acres and that of Ramji Lal 9.22 acres." 5. Petitioner being aggrieved by calculation has filed a review petition which was allowed in part vide order dated 02.12.1991 and decree was again modified to following extent :- “3. Now from the case of the parties it is proved that. Mauji Ram died in 1932 was the original tenant and the disputed land along with some other land was his self acquired property. Originally the land was 54.23 acres in the Khewat out of which one acre of the Zamindari property was bequeathed to Guru Govind which is diety of temple. Mauji Ram died in 1932 was the original tenant and the disputed land along with some other land was his self acquired property. Originally the land was 54.23 acres in the Khewat out of which one acre of the Zamindari property was bequeathed to Guru Govind which is diety of temple. 6.3 acres from the khewat was given to Phool Chandrs through the Will, where as Smt. Mishri wife of Indrajit, Nathi son of Gopi and Ramji Lal son of Smt. Mendu were given equal shares out of 47 acres shares of the Khewat. Thus all the three persons get approximately 15.66 acres respectively each. Subsequently Nathhi's brother Manohar filed suit and was declared to be entitled to half share out of the share of Nathi. He got his share partitioned and took away the land of hie share. Similarly Ramji Ial co-opted Govind Ram and Ram Hetu in his own share. The share of Smt. Misri was also separated. Now the total land which remained in the share of the parties after consolidation operation is only 21.64 acres. Consequently the share of Phul Chand is 6.23 and that of Bhimseh son of Nathi is 7.83 shares while that of Ramji Lal, Ram Hetu and Govind Ram jointly is 15.66 acres and accordingly the share of Phool Chand comes to 4.53 acres, Bhimsen 5.70 acres and the share of Ramji Lal, Ram Hetu and Govind Ram collectively is 11.40 acres. 4. We, therefore, accordingly modify the decrees of the courts below and declare the aforesaid shares of the parties which have been calculated with the help of the learned counsels. Let the records be sent back to the trial court for preparing final decree.” 6. Learned advocates for petitioner submits that in the aforesaid order, learned Court has returned a finding that there was an error apparent on record and also returned a finding that total land remained in share of party after consolidation operation was 21.64 and not 21.07. 7. Learned advocates next submits that later part whereby area calculated for purpose of partition was absolutely wrong as the same was without any basis. 8. Learned counsel for respondents 3 to 5 has supported the above submissions, however, no one has appeared on behalf of legal heirs of respondent-2. 9. 7. Learned advocates next submits that later part whereby area calculated for purpose of partition was absolutely wrong as the same was without any basis. 8. Learned counsel for respondents 3 to 5 has supported the above submissions, however, no one has appeared on behalf of legal heirs of respondent-2. 9. Court has considered the above submissions, however, problem lies in paragraph 4 of impugned order which has already quoted above. 10. It appears that above referred calculation was based on calculation given by learned counsel for parties before Court below. Court has also calculated the above referred area of land which comes about 51.35 acres whereas it ought to have 54.23 acres. Still since, basis of calculation is not on record not referred in order, therefore, there is an error of calculation. 11. Learned counsel for rival parties have fairly submitted that since basis of above calculation is before this Court, therefore, though this writ petition is pending for more than 3 decades, still if this matter is remanded back to Board of Revenue, division of property may be conducted more precisely on basis of material available, after hearing rival parties. 12. In aforesaid circumstances, order dated 02.12.1991 is set aside and matter is remitted back to Board of Revenue to pass a fresh order on review petition. 13. Court also takes note that so far as error in regard to area i.e. whether it is 21.64 or 21.07, there is already a finding that at present area is 21.64, therefore, same shall remain in force. 14. This writ petition is disposed of with above observations. 15. Since this case is very old, therefore, Board of Revenue will decide the review petition within six months. 16. Parties will be at liberty to file amended cause title before Court concerned.